@malmessi said:

Ok it is as I said, Russia need to pay a lot for fighters just to get point 1) but this was the same in normal A&A games with one difference, russian fig can be also used to attack and take back precious territories
About point 2) it was predicted by me but I have never seen Rus purchasing bombers or battleships or other expansive units in any game over teh last 10 years playing TripleA. It all depends on the cost for those dive bombers; if a bomber costs like 4 inf it will allow to kill 4 german inf in the incoming 4 turns but on the otjher side it will be a -4 inf for Stalin too...
I am sure you balanced your game very well, my posts are just opinions of a player who did not crrated the game, did not even read complete rules, just trying to help in a construcitve way

Normal Soviet behavior varies depending on the map. If you're playing Revised, the Soviets would maybe buy fighters for back-and-forth battles. But probably no bombers, and definitely no navy of any kind! If you're playing New World Order (a player-created map of the European theater), it would be somewhat normal for the Soviets to buy bombers for back-and-forth battles, or to help threaten the German Baltic fleet.

But the rules set I've created for this map is completely different than what anyone is used to. Different logic is going to apply. Fighters for my map serve a role which does not exist for Larry Harris maps. The one task of fighters is to shoot down enemy air. This, they do well. If you're building air units for a Larry Harris map, you're probably building them either to take out land targets (back and forth battles) or for naval battles. Or maybe strategic bombing raids.

For my map, if you're looking for a plane that's good at taking out land units, you want a dive bomber. For naval battles, a torpedo bomber. For strategic bombing raids, a strategic bomber. Fighters, dive bombers, and torpedo bombers each cost 10 PUs. Strategic bombers cost 18 PUs. If you're building a fighter, dive bomber, or torpedo bomber, that's essentially costing you 3.3 anti-tank guns (cost of 3, attack and defend on a 1).

In a Larry Harris map, air units cannot strafe land units. Instead, the air units fire, then the land units fire. This is not strafing. It is normal combat. In my rules set, air units are able to strafe. The dive bombers fire at the land units, the land units do not fire back at the dive bombers. The way to prevent your units from being strafed is to build fighters and assert control over the skies.

"I am sure you balanced your game very well." I like your optimism on this subject! I wish I shared it.

In my first test game things were unbalanced in favor of the Allies. I made balance corrections. Those corrections were apparently too heavy-handed, as things became unbalanced in favor of the Axis. In particular, Barbarossa was too strong. I then made pro-Allied balance corrections, and in my most recent test game things were unbalanced in favor of the Allies. I'm sure I'll get this right eventually.

@Vendetta said:

@KurtGodel7 Fascinating. My own tech system overhaul plays closer to vanilla but has 45 universal techs and 48 national exclusives (4 each for ANZAC/China/France and 6 each for Germany/Italy/Japan/UK/US/USSR). It would be interesting to compare notes on that once I've finished getting it all written up.

Yeah that sounds good. I'm curious to see the tech system you've come up with.

Speaking of tech systems, I just played a few rounds of another example game. I'm kind of learning good openings as I go along. I now believe that a good German opening involves taking Leningrad on G2. I think that Japan should start neutral farming on round 1, with the intention of building factories in southeast Asia. Japan does not go to war against the UK, USA, or USSR until round 3. But in rounds 1 and 2 it can still invade China and can still neutral farm. It was sometimes necessary for Japan to ship units out of China to achieve its neutral farming goals for southeast Asia.

While things for Japan went as they should, the situation with Germany was more discouraging. On round 2, Britain built land units and a transport for its factories in India and Africa. A couple trenches for Singapore. Other than that, it put almost all its money into strategic bombers.

The Soviet Union starts the game with nerfed fighters. Soviet fighters have a dogfight value of 2, as opposed to 3 for everyone else. To get rid of the nerf the Soviets need to research radios tech. That's a 2 star research requirement. The Soviet Union got a little lucky with its tech rolls, getting the radios tech in its round 2 research phase. This meant that Soviet fighters would no longer be nerfed in dogfights, starting in round 3. The USSR then used the majority of its round 2 cash to buy fighters. It also built max defense for Leningrad, with 7 heavy guns and 2 trenches. (The Leningrad part could have been avoided with a better German opening.)

On round 3 the air battles were devastating for Germany. Its fighter defense over the "bomb Germany" theater was largely wiped out by British strategic bombers. It only took out one British bomber in exchange. In the air battle over the Eastern Front, the Germans lost considerably more air than the Soviets. The remaining German dive bombers did some damage to Soviet targets, but not quite enough for Germany to take Leningrad. British strategic bombers did 40 PUs of damage to Germany.

My planned solution to this (once my weekly usage limit resets).

Nerf the strategic bomber. This means reducing its dogfight value to 1 and its strategic bombing value to 3. I might also reduce its hitpoints to 2. I also plan to nerf the strategic bombing value of the medium bomber to 1. Someone wants an un-nerfed version of these units? Great. The un-nerfed version will be made available through research in the "strategic bombers" tech category. This means that the Allied strategic bombing campaign will be stronger late game than early game. Which is historically accurate.

Give Germany a few more fighters. This should make it a little tougher for the Soviets to take control over that air front.

Require one additional star of research for the radios tech for the Soviets. Granted, they did unusually well on their tech rolls, if their goal was to get that particular tech. Even so, I think they should need 3 stars to be rid of the Soviet fighter nerf instead of 2.

Maybe give Germany a few extra infantry for Barbarossa.

The Soviets appear to be economically strongest for their round 2 purchase phase. Three reasons for that. 1) I didn't give them full starting cash for round 1. 2) The Germans push east for the first few rounds, reducing Soviet income. 3) The Soviets start off with an insane number of MPs. This means they don't have to buy anti-tank guns for the first two rounds, because the conscripts they buy instead give them plenty of cannon fodder. The Soviets do not need to purchase anti-tank guns as cannon fodder until round 3. If the Soviets are able to use their round 2 economic strength to take control of the sky on round 3, that would blunt Barbarossa too early.

But, I don't want the initial German push to result in a quick collapse of Moscow, because that would be too unbalanced in the other direction. The fall of Moscow causes all Soviet cash to be handed over to the Axis nation which conquered it. But that is a one-time deal only. After that, the Soviet player is able to collect income without regard for whether he does or does not own Moscow. Also, cash is handed over for the first Moscow conquest only. If the Axis takes Moscow additional times, it is treated as a normal territory. On turns when the Soviet Union doesn't own Moscow, it receives the benefit of only one research center instead of its usual two.

Non-Soviet Allied units are not allowed onto Soviet soil. Non-Chinese Allied units are not allowed onto Chinese-owned soil. In my example games, China has been able to put up a good fight on its own, without the help of other Allies.

@KurtGodel7 said:

To take the example you gave, suppose the Soviet Union builds a bunch of fighters to prevent Germany from having control over the eastern front. The Luftwaffe then exits the eastern front and goes elsewhere. This makes the Soviet Union happy for two reasons. 1) His armies are no longer being strafed by German dive bombers. 2) Now the Soviet Union can build dive bombers of its own to strafe German armies

Ok it is as I said, Russia need to pay a lot for fighters just to get point 1) but this was the same in normal A&A games with one difference, russian fig can be also used to attack and take back precious territories
About point 2) it was predicted by me but I have never seen Rus purchasing bombers or battleships or other expansive units in any game over teh last 10 years playing TripleA. It all depends on the cost for those dive bombers; if a bomber costs like 4 inf it will allow to kill 4 german inf in the incoming 4 turns but on the otjher side it will be a -4 inf for Stalin too...
I am sure you balanced your game very well, my posts are just opinions of a player who did not crrated the game, did not even read complete rules, just trying to help in a construcitve way

@KurtGodel7 Fascinating. My own tech system overhaul plays closer to vanilla but has 45 universal techs and 48 national exclusives (4 each for ANZAC/China/France and 6 each for Germany/Italy/Japan/UK/US/USSR). It would be interesting to compare notes on that once I've finished getting it all written up.